TERRITORIAL  GOVERNMENTS. 


SPEECH 

# 


OF 


HON.  KINSLEY  S.  BINGHAM, 


OE  MICHIGAN. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  U.  STATES 

AUGUST  7,  1848. 


WASHINGTON: 


J.  AND  G.  S.  GIDEON,  PRINTERS. 

1848. 


I 


SPEECH. 


The  Ilouge  having  under^onsideiation  the  message  of  the  President  relative  to  the  boundary  of  Texas— 

Mr.  BINGHAM  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Speaker  :  Without  the  least  expectation  of  enlightening  this  House  upon  the  subject  I 
propose  to  discuss,  I  am  anxious  that  my  constituents  should  understand  the  reasons  which 
will  govern  my  action  upon  the  organization  of  territories.  Within  the  last  four  years  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States  have  acquired  by  annexation  and  treaty  a  territory  embracing,  in  extent, 'a  million  of 
square  miles,  including  several  parallels  of  latitude,  and  stretching  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to 
the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  first  acquisition  containing  three  hundred  thousand  square  miles  has 
become  one  of  the  sovereignties  of  this  Confederacy,  and  is  known  as  the  State  of  Texas.  The 
latter  embracing  a  large  portion  of  the  country,  known  as  New  Mexico  and  California,  has  been 
acquired  by  a  treaty  at  the  termination  of  a  war  with  Mexico,  and  has  become  territory  of  the 
United  States.  By  the  joint  resolutions  for- the  annexation  of  Texas,  four  additional  States 
were  authorized  to  be  made  within  its  limits,  and  the  proposition,  that  slavery  should  be  pro¬ 
hibited  within  two  of  those  States  received  but  little  favor  in  this  House,  only  forty  members 
voting  in  the  affirmative.  Congress  did,  itis  true,  go  through  the  hollow  form  of  insisting  that  in 
< ‘the  States  formed  out  of  that  portion  of  Texas  tying  north  of  the  line  of  thirty-six  degrees  and. 
thirty  minutes  slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited,”  but  it  accepted  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
of  Texas,  which  precludes  the  Legislature  of  the  State  from  enacting  “any  law  for  the  emanci¬ 
pation  of  slaves  without  the  consent  of  their  owner's,”  and  no  authority  is  granted  to  prevent  the 
introduction  of  slavery  into  any  part  of  the  State. 

Soon  after  the  annexation  of  Texas  the  Government  became  involved  in  a  war  with  Mexico, 
and  it  was  made  apparent  at  an  early  day  that  the  only  means  of  settling  the  unhappy  difficul¬ 
ties,  in  which  the  two  Republics  were  involved,  would  be  by  cession  of  territory  from  Mexico 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  And  in  the  first  session  of  the  last  Congress,  more 
than  two  years  ago,  the  President  asked  an  appropriation  of  two  millions  of  dollars  to  enable 
him  to  conclude  a  treaty  of  peace,  with  the  understanding  that  territory  was  to  be  acquired. 
That  appropriation  was  made  by  the  popular  branch  of  Congress,  and  in  passing  it  they  gave  a 
distinct  intimation  to  the  Executive  and  to  the  world,  “that  as  an  express  and  fundamental  con¬ 
dition  to  the  acquisition  of  any  territory  from  the  Republic  of  Mexico  by  the  United  States,  by 
virtue  of  any  treaty  which  may  be  negotiated  between  them,  and  to  the  use  of  the  Executive  of 
the  moneys  herein  appropriated,  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  eve/exist  in  any 
part  of  said  territory,  except  for  crime,  whereof  the  party  shall  be  first  duly  convicted.” 

This  provision  was  sanctioned  by  a  majority  of  fourteen  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  but 
failed  to  become  a  law  for  the  want  of  action  by  the  Senate.  At  the  subsequent  session  of  the 
last  Congress  a  similar  provision  was  engrafted  on  to  an  appropriation  for  a  like  purpose,  by  a 
majority  of  nine,  but  it  was  stricken  out  by  the  Senate,  and  this  House  concurred  by  a  small 
majority.  Mean  time  the  attention  of  the  country  was  awakened  to  the  subject,  and  the  Legis¬ 
latures  of  a  large  majority  of  the  free  States,  my  own  among  the  number,  gave  utterance  to  the 
nearly  unanimous  sentiment  of  the  people,  by  the  passage  of  resolutions,  calling  upon  Congress 
to  prohibit  the  extension  of  slavery  over  territory  to  be  acquired  from  Mexico  where  it  had  never 
existed.  *  ' 

Upon  the  justice  and  propriety  of  this  war,  parties  were  divided — one  party  charging  that  it 
was  unconstitutionally  begun,  and  that  it  was  waged  against  a  feeble  and  semi-barbarous  people 
for  the  purposeof  conquest,  and  to  enable  the  slaveholder  to  extend  over  its  vastand  fertile  plains 
the  “peculiar  institutions”  of  the  South.  The  other  insisting  that,  being  commenced  by  Mexi¬ 
co,  its  prosecution  on  our  part  was  just  and  honorable;  that  “indemnity  for  the  past  and  security 
for  the  future  was  its  object;  that  the  extensfon  of  slavery  was  not  its  design;  and  that  if  territo¬ 
rial  indemnity  was  obtained  the  ‘area  of  freedom’  would  be  enlarged  and  extended  thereby.” 
This  expensive,  but  glorious  war,  which  has  shed  such  distinguished  lustre  upon  the  prowess 
of  our  arms,  has  been  brought  to  a  close.  This  vast  tract  of  country  has  parsed  into  our  pos¬ 
session,  and  Congress  has  been  called  upon  by  the  Executive  to  make  “rules  and  regulations 
for  its  government.” 

Shall  the  wise,  beneficent,  and  humane  provisions  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  be  extended  over 
it,  or  shall  it  be  doomed  to  the  blighting  influences  of  slavery? 

I  confess,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  aside  from  the  consequences,  either  for  good  or  evil,  that  are  to 
flow  from  the  settlement  of  this  momentous  question,  I  consider  the  honor  and’the  character  of  the 
country  involved  in  it.  The  founders  of  the  Republic,  and  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
spared  no  efforts  to  prevent  the  increase  of  slavery  by  importation,  and  its*  spread  into  territories 
which  it  had  not  yet  reached  ;  and  if  in  that  day  they  had  discovered,  to  use  the  language  of  Mr. 
Monroe,  “that  this  evil  had  preyed  upon  the  very  vitals  of  the  Union,  and  had  been  prejudicial 
to  all  the  States  in  which  it  had  existed;”  and  if  they  desired,  in  the  eloquent  language  of  Patrick 
Henry,  “that  an  opportunity  might  be  offered  to  abolish  this  lamentable  evil,”  surely  we  should. 


not  be  held  guiltless  in  this  day  of  progress,  so  peculiarly  devoted  to  the  elevation  and  improve¬ 
ment  of  the  race  of  man,  and  to  the  amelioration  of  his  condition,  were  we  to  hesitate  to  declare 
that  over  this  extensive  acquisition^'neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  ever  be 
known,  except  in  the  punishment  of  crime.”  Yet,  Mr.  Speaker,  great  as  the  evil  is  acknow¬ 
ledged  to  be,  disgraceful  as  would  be  the  stigma  which  would  attach  to  our  Government  were 
we  to  conquer  and  acquire  free  territory  that  slavery  might  be  extended  over  it,  we  should  yet 
hesitate,  if  the  powers  were  not  conferred  upon  us,  and  if  we  had  not  clearly  the  right  to  prohibit 
its  introduction. 

Writers  upon  the  law  of  nations,  whose  authority  is  everywhere  received,  and  nowhere  dis¬ 
puted,  seem  to  concur  in  what  is  apparent  to  every,  ordinary  understanding,  that  the  power  to 
acquire  carries  with  it  the  power  to  govern  ;  and  Yattel  informs  us,  that  the  right  of  a  people  to 
a  country  ^implies  two  things  :  “  1.  The  domain ,  by  virtue  of  which  the  nation  alone  may  use 
the  country  for  the  support  of  its  necessities,  may  dispose  of  it  as  it  thinks  proper,  and  derive 
from  it  every  advantage  it  is  capable  of  yielding.  2.  The  empire ,  or  the  right  of  sovereign  com¬ 
mand,  by  which  the  nation  directs  and  regulates,  at  its  pleasure,  everything  they  possess  in  the 
country.”  '> 

“  When  a  nation  takes  possession  of  a  country,  to  which  no  prior  owner  can  lay  claim,  it  is 
considered  as  acquiring  the  empire ,  or  the  sovereignty  of  it,  at  the  same  time  with  the  domain. 
Forj  since  the  nation  is  free  and  independent,  it  can  have  no  intention,  in  settling  in  a  country, 
to  leave  to  others  the  right  of  command,  or  any  of  those  rights  that  constitute  sovereignty.” — 
Yattel,  book  1,  chap.  18,  sec.  204,  205. 

From  this  authority  I  think  it  cannot  be  doubted  that,  in  the  acquisition  of  territory,  whether 
by  treaty  or  conquest,  th$  governpient  of  it  follows,  and  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  possession. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my  judgment’,  the  righifto  legislate  for  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  establish  governments  .over  them,  is  clearly  conferred  by  the  Constitution.  It  says  : 
“The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  re- 
specting*the  territory  or  other  property  of  the  United  States. ’’  The  words  “  rules  anjl  regula¬ 
tions”  conferred,  I  think,  beyond  question,  legislative  authority,  and  were  understood  to  be 
.equal  to,  and  synonymous  with,  the  power  of  making  laws.*  This  construction  is  made  per¬ 
fectly  apparent  by  the  Constitution- itself ;  for,  by  it  power  was  given  to  Congress  to  regulate 
commerce  with  foreign  nations “  to  make  rules  concerning  captures  ;”  “  to  make  rules  for  the 
government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces  ;”  “  to  alter  State  regulations  in  respect  to 
the  time,  place,  and  manner  of  holding  elections;”  “to  coin  money,  and  regulate  the  value 
thereof;”  and  they  were  forbidden  “  to  give  preference,  by  any  regulation  of  commerce,  to  the 
ports  of  one  State  over  the  ports  of  another:”  and  the  appellate'  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  certain  cases  was  made  subject  to  “  such  regulations  as  Congress  should  make.”  In 
regard  to  territories,  the  words  “  rules  and  regulations ”  were  both  used ;  and  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution,  the  expounders  of  constitutional  law,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
all  concur  that  these  words  confer  upon  Congress  the  power  of  making  laws,  and  of  legislating 
over,  and  for,  the  Territories;  and  that  by  them  Congress  was  not  limited  to  a  simple  disposition 
of  the  land  ;  so  that  even  if  the  Government  did  not  own  a  foot  of  the  land,  or  after  it  was  all 
disposed  of,  the  same  right  to  govern  was  conferred  by  the  Constitution  ;  and  that  until  they 
are  admitted  into  the  Confederacy  as  States,  they  are  under  the  absolute  control  and  direction 
of  Congress. 

o  •  _ 

Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  his  work  on  the  Constitution,  says  :  “As  the  General  Government  pos¬ 
sesses  the  right  to  acquire  territory  either  by  conquest  or  by  treaty,  it  would  seem  to  follow,  as 
an  inevitable  consequence,  that  it  possesses  the  power  to  govern,  what  it  has  acquired.  The 
territory  does  not,  when  so  acquired,  become  entitled  to  self-government,  and  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  any  State.  •  It  must  consequently  be  under  the  dominion  and  jurisdiction  of 
the  Union,  or  it.  must  be  without  any  government  at  all.  No  one  has  ever  doubted  the  authority 
of  Congress  to  erect  territorial  governments  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  under  the 
general  language  of  the  clause,  ‘  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations.’  What  shall  be  the 
form  of  government  established  in  the  Territories  depends  exclusively  upon  the  discretion  of 
Congress.  Having  a  right  to  erect  a  territorial  government,  they  may  confer  upon  it  such  pow¬ 
ers,  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive,  as  they  may  deem  best.  The  power  of  Congress  over 
tiie-public. territory  is  clearly  .exclusive  and.  universal,  and  their  legislation  is  subject,  to  no  con¬ 
trol,  but  is  absolute  and  unlimited,  unless  so  far  as  it  is  affected  by  stipulations  in  the  cessions. 5> 
Wi.  3,  pp.  193-198. 

“The  court  of  last  resort,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in  the  case  of  Williams  as,  The  Bank  of 
Michigan,  7  Wendell  R.  554,  say :  ‘All  power  possessed  by  the  Government  of  Michigan  was 
derived  from  the  act  of  Congress.  Territories  have  no  reserved  power,  as  in  the  case  of  States 
admitted  into  the  Union;  the  authority  of  Congress  is  supreme  and  unlimited,  unless  made  other¬ 
wise  by  the  cessions  of  lands  composing  those  territories.  ’  « 

“And  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  McCullock  vs.  The  State  of 
Maryland,  decided  in  1819,  4  Wheatpnf  422,  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  who  delivered  the  opinion 
of  the  court,  commenting  on  the  authority  of  Congress  to  make  laws  for  executing  granted  pow¬ 
ers,  refers  iii  illustration  to  ‘the  universal  acquiescence  in  the  construction  which  has  been  uni¬ 
formly  put  on  the  third  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution,  and  says:  ‘the  power  to- 


5 


‘make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to> 
the  United  States,’  is  not  more  comprehensive  than  the  power  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be 
necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  ‘  the  powers  of  government;’  yet  all  admit  the 
constitutionality  of  a  territorial  government.’ 

“In  the  case  of  the  American  Insurance  Company  vs.  .Canter,  decided  in  1828,  1  Peters,  542, 
Chief  Justice  Marshall,  who  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court,  commenting  on  the  sixth  article 
of  the  treaty  ceding  Florida  to  the  United  States,  and  declaring  that  its  inhabitants  are  to  be  ‘ad¬ 
mitted  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  privileges,  rights,  and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,’ says  ‘  it  is  unnecessary  to  inquire  whether  this  is  not  their  condition,  independent  of 
stipulation.  They  do  not  lioivever  'participate  in  'political1  power;  they  do  not  shace  in  the  govern- 
nfent  till  Florida  shall  become  a  State.  In  the  mean  time  Fonda  continues  to  be  a  territory  of 
the  United  States,  governed  by  virtue  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  empowers  Con¬ 
gress  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  United  States.’  ” 

f) n  page  542  of  that  case  the  court  say  :  “  The  Constitution  .confers  absolutely  on  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  Union  the  powers  of  making  war  and  of  making  treaties.  Consequently,  that 
Government  possesses  the  power  of  acquiring  territory,  either  by  conquest  or  treaty .”  Again,  on 
the  same  page,  the  right  to  make  laws  for  a  territory  is  thus  spoken  of :  “  Perhaps  the  power  of 
governing  a  territory  of  the  United  States,  which  has  not,  by  becoming  a  State,  acquired  the 
means  of  self-government,  may  result  necessarily  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  not  within  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  any  particular  State,  and  is  within  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  The 
right  to  govern  may  be  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  right  to  acquire  territory ;  but  which¬ 
ever  may  be  the  source  whence  the  power  is  derived,  the  possession  of  it  is  unquestioned .” 

In  the  case  of  ,the  United  States,  vs.  Gratiot,  14  Peters,  637,  Judge  Thompson,  who  delivered  ‘ 
the’ opinion  of  the  court,  commenting  on  the  power  given  to  Congress  by  the  fourth  article, 
third  section,  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  says :  “  This  power  is  vested  in  Congress 
without  limitation  ;  and  has  been  considered  the  foundation  upon  which  the  territorial  govern¬ 
ment  rests.”  In  the  case  of  McCullock  vs.  The  State  of  Maryland,  the  Chief  Justice,  in  giving 
the  opinion  of  the  court,  speaking  of  this  article  and  the  power  of  Congress  growing  out  of  it, 
applies  it  to  territorial  government,  and  says,  “  all  admit  their  constitutionality.”  And  again, 
speaking  of  the  cession  of  Florida,  (in  the  case  of  the  American  Insurance  Company  vs.  Canter,) 
under  the  treaty  with  Spain,  he  says  that  “  Florida,  until  she  shall  become  a  State ,  continues  to 
be  a  territory  of  the  United  States,  governed  by  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  empowers 
Congress  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  of 
the  United  States.” 

In  the  case  of  Schooner  Exchange  vs.  M’Faddon  and  others,  7th  Cranch,  Judge  Marshall 
says  :  “  The  jurisdiction  of  a  nation  within  its  own  territory  is  necessarily  exclusive  and  abso¬ 
lute.  It  is  susceptible  of  no  limitations  not  imposed  by  itself.  All  exceptions,  therefore,  to  the 
full  £nd  complete  power  within  its  own  territories,  must  be  traced  up  to  the  consent  of  the  nation' 
itself.  They  can  flow  from  no  other  legitimate  source.” 

Again,  in  the  case  tff  the  American  Insurance  Company  vs.  356  bales  of  cotton,  1  Peters’,  the 
court  say  :  “  Until  Florida  shall  become  a  State,  she  continues  to  be  a  territory  of  the  U.  States, 
governed  by  virtue  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  empowers  Congress  4  to  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  and  other  property  of  the  United  States.’  ” 

These  views  have  been  carried  out  in  the  acts  of  the  Federal  Government,  from  its  commence¬ 
ment  to  the  present  day,  without  dispute  or  exception. 

In  the  cessions  of  territory  by  the  States  of  New  York,  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  and  others, 
under  the  old  Confederation,  “  the  right,  interest,  title  of  soil,  and  jurisdiction ,”  was  relinquished 
to  the  Confederated  Government.  Under  that  cession  the  ordinance  of  1787 — a  measure  which 
confers  such  high  honor  upon  the  name  of  the  illustrious  Jefferson — was  framed  ;  and  by  one  ojL 
its  provisions  slavery  was  excluded  from  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio.  The  first  Congress* 
under  the  new  Constitution  passed  an  act,  in  the  preamble  of  which  they  declare  that,  “  Where¬ 
as,  in  order  that  the  ordinance  of  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled,  for  the  government 
of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio,  may  continue  to  have  full  effect,  it  is  requisite  that 
certain  provisions  should  be  made,  so  as  to  adapt  the  same  to  the  present  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.” 

Thus  was  Ufull  effect ”  given  to  the  ordinance,  under  the  present  Constitution,  by  a  Congress 
composed  of  many  of  the  men,  who  aided  in  passing  the  ordinance,  in  framing  the  Constitution, 
and  of  statesmen  who  were  contemporaneous  with  them.  If,  then,  Mr.  Speaker, ‘Congress 
was  vested,  by  the  Constitution,  and  by  the  .re-enactment  of  the  ordinance,  with  authority  to 
govern  the  Territories,  to  exercise  legislative  powers  over  them,  or  to  establish  territorial  govern¬ 
ments,  that  right  of  legislation  is  only  limited  by  the  prohibitions  of  the  Constitution;  and  so  they 
may  legislate  in  relation  to  slavery.  Until  within  a  few  years  past,  this  right  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  questioned ;  and  from  ihe  year  1790,  down  to*  the  present  day,  under  Federal  and 
Democratic  administrations,  the  statute  books,  organizing  territorial  governments,  arc  filled  with 
precedents.  So  well  convinced  of  this  right  to  legislate  were  southern  statesmen,  that  in  1790, 
when  the  State  of  North  Carolina  ceded  to  the  United  States  a  portion  of  her  territory  west  of 
the  mountains,  she  made  this  reservation,  that  “no  regulation  made  by  Congress  shall  tend  to 


6 


emancipate  slaves .”  This  quotation  furnishes  the  most  conclusive  proof  that  the  word  regulate 
was  understood  to  correspond  with  law ,  and  that  the  State  of  North  Carolina  believed  that,  if  the 
reservation  had  not  been  made,  Congress  could  have  exercised  the  power  of  emancipating  slaves.” 
The  act  of  1793,  in  relation  to  the  capture  and  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  is  made  to  apply  to  ter- 
.ritories,  although  the  words  of  the  Constitution  are,  that  “no  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  reg- 
ulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of 
■the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due.” 

I  have  never  heard  any  of  my  strict  construction  friends  of  the  South,  object  to  the  constitu¬ 
tionality  of  this  act.  They  seem  perfectly  willing  that  Congress  should  aid  them  in  the  capture 
of  their  fugitive  slaves,  escaping  from  a  State  into  a  Territory ,  or  from  a  Territory  into  a  State,  or 
from  one  Territory  into  another.  The  authority  under  which  that  act  was  passed  could  only 
have  been  conferred  by  the  clause  which  gives  Congress  the  power  to  “make  rules  and  regula¬ 
tions  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belongingto  the  United  States;”  and  a  cheerful 
acquiescence  seems  to  have  been  given  to  it,  by  all  parties.  But  when  we  propose  to  exclude 
slavery  from  free  territory,  the  power  is  denied;  and  we  are  told  that  we  are  inflicting  a  deadly 
;*tab  at  the  Constitution. 

I  repeat,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  in  the  passage  of  laws  in  relation  to  territories,  in  the  organiza¬ 
tion  of  territorial  governments,  in  reserving  the  right  of  annulling  acts  of  territorial  legislation, 
in  the  actual  exercise  of  that  power,  Congress  has  asserted  and  exercised  legislative  authority 
upon  all  subjects,  including  slavery,*  and  has  declared,  by  repeated  acts,  that  she  possessed  abso¬ 
lute  sovereignty  over  her  territorial  possessions. 

Ought  Congress  to  exercise  this  right  over  these  new  and  valuable  acquisitions,  just  obtained 
from- Mexico?  -  'Regarding  shivery  as  a  politiekl  evil,  aa-a  hmdranCerto  the  growth  and  prosper¬ 
ity  of  a  State,  as  an  element  of  weakness  wherever  it  exists,  as  wholly  incompatible  with  that 
degree  of  intelligence  which  makes  labor  either  respectable  or  profitable,  I  insist  that  we  should 
fail  to  discharge  our  duty  were  we  to  tolerate  its  introduction  and  spread  over  this  vast  extent 
of  country  which  has  just  come  into  our  possession  free. 

And  that  if  the  fathers  of  the  Republic  cautiously  provided  against  its  introduction  into  the  Ter¬ 
ritories  then  belonging  to  the  United  States,  the  tribute  to  their  memories  which  we  should  pay 
would  bapoor  indeed,  if  we  should  fail  to  follow  the  example,  which  their  wisdom  and  foresight 
dictated.  Since  the  establishment  of  the  Government,  the  Louisiana  purchase,  the  Florida  pur¬ 
chase,  and  the  Texas  annexation,  have  added  five  slave  States  to  the  Union,  with  an  area  of 
460,000  square  miles ;  slavery  existed  in  all  this  country  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition,  and 
there  has  only  be  reclaimed  from  it  the  single  State  of  Iowa,  which,  in  1840,  contained  a  popula¬ 
tion  of  less  than  50,000  people.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  ask  your  attention  to  some  statistics 
which  I  have  extracted  from  a  work  of  Professor  Tucker,  of  the  University  of  Virginia,  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  relative  population  of  the  free  and  slave  States,  and  their  relative  increase,  The 
fifteen  free  States  contain  an  area  of  about  four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  square  fniles, 
while  the  fifteen  slave  States  contain  an  area  of  more  than  900,000  square  miles.  In  1840 
the  population  of  the  United  States  was  17,263,353,  and  of  this  the  free  States  contained  about 
10  millions,  and  the  slave  States  about  7  millions.  In  the  free  States  the  density  of  population, 
was  22.7  to  the  square  mile,  while  in  the  slave  States,  exclusive  of  Texas,  it  was  only  11.7  to  the 
square  mile,  and  including  Texas  it  would  only  be  about  8  to  the  square  mile.  In  thirty  y^ars, 
from  1810  to  1840,  the  increase  in  the  free  States  was  as  100  to  258.8 ;  in  the  slave  States  it  was 
as  100  to  210.7.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  aside  from  the  impolicy  and  injustice  of  permitting  slavery 
to  enter  this  new  acquisition,  an  equitable  division  would  seem  to  demand,  that  every  inch  of  this  new 
Territory  should  be  reserved  for  the  emigrant  and  the  free  laborer,  because  the  area  of  the  free 
States  is  less  than  one  half  of  that  of  the  slave  States,  their  population  is  more  than  twice  as 
;  dense,  and  their  increase  much  more  rapid.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  iron  heel  of  oppression  has  been 
“  crushing  for  centuries  millions  of  our  fellow  men  in  Europe,  of  our  own  race  and  color.  If  we 
were  to  turn  a  listening  ear  to  their  prayer,  we  should  hear  them  cry,  “save,  oh,  save  this  land 
for  us  and  for  our  children.”  One  after  another,  as  this  down-trodden  race  escapes  from  the  ex¬ 
actions  of  their  cruel  task  masters,  they  are  fleeing  to  this  land  of  promise,  this  asylum  for  the 
oppressed,  as  fast  as  the  ships  of  the  sea  can  bear  them.  This  tremendous  current  of  immigra¬ 
tion  naturcilly  flows  to  the  free  States:  during  tfre.last  year  more  than  three  hundred  thousand 
arrived  within  ottr  borders,  and  for  the  current  year  it  is  estimated  that  four  hundred  thousand 
will  arrive  in  the  port  of  New  York  alone;  enough  to  fill  up  a  State,  annually ,  as  large  as  Michi¬ 
gan  and' all  Wisconsin. 

Mr.  Speaker,  a  few  weeks  ago,  in  listening  to  some  eloquent  remarks  of  a  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  (Mr.  Bayly,)  I  understood  him  to^ay,  “that  in  all  the  elements  of  prosperity  aad 
wealth,  Virginia  would  bear  a-favorable  comparison  with  her  sister  States,  and  that  it  was  not 
considered  degrading  for  white  men  to  labor  in  Virginia.”  The  latter  statement  I  consider  suffi- 


*  An  act  was  passed  on  the  6th  of  March,*  1820,  “to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  to 
form  a  State  Government,  and  for  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States,  aitd  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  territories. 


* 


* 


7 


cientiy  answered  by  the  fact  that  the  poor  white  man  is  denied  the  right  of  suffrage  in  Virginia, 
and  that,  as  a  qualification  for  holding  office,  a  man  is  required  to  have  a  freehold  estate,  by  her 
constitution.  A  reverse  of  fortune  which  should  deprive  the  gentleman  himself  of  his  land 
would  deprive  the  country  of  his  services,  for  he  holds  his  seat  here  by  that  frail  tenure.  In  re¬ 
lation  to  the  former,  I  have  examined  some  statistics  which  I  regret  to  say,  do  not  bear  the  gen¬ 
tleman  out  in  his  statements.  My  attention  has  been  called  to  a  report,  transmitted  to  this 
House  by  the  Postmaster  General,  in  answer  to  a  resolution  submitted  by  another  gentleman 
from  Virginia,  (Mr.  Meade,)  in  relation  to  the  transportation  of  the  mails,  and  I  find  that,  in 
the  year  1838,  the  revenues  from  postages  in  that  State  amounted  to  $139,353  ;  that  there  has- 
been  a  gradual  diminution  since  that  time  ;  and  that,  in  the  year  1847,  the  revenue  was  reduced 
to  $92,272 — being  a  falling  off  in  nine  years  of  $47,061 !  And  that  in  Virginia,  one  of  the  old 
thirteen  States,  lying  in  the  centre  of  the  Republic,  the  expense  of  transporting  the  mails,  in  the  - 
year  1837,  exceeded  the  revenues  from  postages  by  more  than  $100,000!  What  is  the  reason 
of  this  great  falling  off  of  the  revenue  from  postages?  To  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer  is  ob¬ 
vious — her  black  population  are  not  permitted  to  read — her  laboring  whites  are  not  intelligent. 

The  subjoined  accounts  are  condensed  from  the  statement  of  the  Auditor  of  the  Post  Office 
Department ;  by  which  it  will  be  seen  that,  while  the  expense  of  carrying  the  mails  in  the  free 
States  was  $230,233  less  than  in  the  slave  States,  the  nett  postage  in  the  free  States  amounted  to 
$925,353  more  than  the  receipts  in  the  slave  States,  or  $471,123  over  and  above  the  expense  of 
carrying  the  mails  in  the  free  States  for  one  year,  ending  the  30th  of  June,  1847,  being  a  profit 
of  over  forty-three  per  cent.  The  expense  of  transporting  the  mails  during  the  same  period,  in 
the  slave  States,  was  $684,462  more  than  the.  receipts  in  tltoue  States,  showing  a  lose  to^lhe 
Department  of  nearly  fifty- two  per  cent.  If  the  receipts  in  the  slave  States  had  been  in  the 
same  ratio  as  in  the  free  States,  the  Department  would  have  realized  $570,000  over  the  expense 
of  carrying  the  mail  in  slave  States,  malting  a  grand  profit  of  $1,041,123  for  carrying  the  mail 
throughout  the  Union: 

POST  OFFICE  DEPARTMENT. 


Free  States  in  account  with  the  United  States 
Post  Office  Department. 

Slave  States  in  account  with  the  United  States 
Post  Office  Department. 

Free  States. 

*  * 

To  cash  paid  for 
carrying  the  mails  y 
one  year,  ending  ? 
30th  June,  1847. 

By  cash  received 
with  postages  one  o 
tear,  ending  30th  ? 
June,  1847. 

f 

Slave  States. 

■4?, 

| 

i ' 

1 

To  cash  paid  for 
carrying  the  mails  O 
one  year,  ending  5° 
30th  June,  1847. 

By  cash  received 
with  postages  one  o 
year,  ending  30th  r8 
June,  1847- 

Maine 

. 

$41,965 

$59,440 

Delaware 

$7,862 

$8,789 

New  Hampshire 

- 

25.560 

40,680 

Maryland 

- 

133,751 

81,656 

Vermont 

- 

26,563 

34,338  J 

Virginia 

- 

192,615 

92,292 

Massachusetts 

- 

107,392 

218,201 

North  Carolina 

- 

172,520 

31,379 

Rhode  Island 

- 

9,187 

26,832 

South  Carolina 

- 

118,157 

50,383 

Connecticut  - 

45,797 

64,157 

Georgia 

- 

153,001 

55,859 

New  York 

• 

229,307 

494,756 

Florida 

- 

45,193 

10,883 

New  Jersey  - 

- 

58,930 

39,586, 

1  Missouri 

49,720 

41,506 

Pennsylvania 

J 

155,412 

252,17tf  1 

Kentucky 

♦ 

89,58P 

53,632 

Ohio  - 

- 

170,295 

158,869 

Tennessee  - 

- 

55,298 

37,987 

Michigan 

- 

28,212 

38,491 

Alabama 

- 

136,499 

49,602 

Indiana 

• 

52,439 

43,348  J 

)  Mississippi  - 

- 

58.451 

33,773 

Illinois 

- 

102,485 

52,359 

Arkansas 

- 

39,996 

9,569 

Iowa  - 

- 

9,722 

9,495  ! 

|  Louisiana 

• 

41,795 

68,523 

Wisconsin 

- 

15,043 

I.  26,703 

Texas 

- 

24,201 

8,246 

1,088,308 

:  1,559,431 

1,318,541 

634,079 

|  1,088,308 

634,079 

TCnl  ir\ 

Bal.  to  Cr.  free  States,  June  30,  ’47, 

$471,123 

|  .v,  V..  ~ 

States,  June  30, 

’47, 

$684,462 

i 

1 

8 


Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  year  1790,  near  sixty  years  ago,  the  State  of  Virginia  contained  a  popu¬ 
lation  of  748,308  inhabitants,  or  one-fifth  of  the  whole  Union.  For  extent  of  territory,  fertility 
of  soil,  salubrity  of  climate,  valuable  mineral  resources,  breadth  of  seaboard,  and  every  natural 
and  commercial  advantage,  she  stands  unrivalled  by  any  of  her  sister  States.  Under  the  appor¬ 
tionment  of  1790,  she  had  nineteen  Representatives  on  this  floor,  while  the  State  of  New  York 
had  but  ten.  In  the  year  1820  Ne\y  York  had  thirty-four  Representatives,  and  Virginia  22. 
Under  the  last  apportionment  of  1840  New  York  has  the  same  number  that  she  had  in  1820. 
thirty-four,  while  Virginia  has  but  15  !  The  value  of  the  exports  of  Virginia,  thirty  years  ago, 
was  $5«000,000;  in  1*844  they  had  dwindled  down  to  £2,000,000. 

In  the  able  work  of  Professor  Tucker,  to  which  I  have  before  alluded,  he 'says,  “  that  agricul¬ 
tural  industry  yields  an  annual  value  of  one  hundred  and  eighty  dollars  to  each  person  employed, 
in  New  England.  In  the  middle  States  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  the 
average  yield  is  two  hundred  and  seventy  dollars  to  the  hand ;  while  in  the  old  slave  States  south 
of  the  Potomac,  the  average  yield  is  only  one  hundred  and  thirty  dollars  to  the  hand.  In  Vir¬ 
ginia  the  average  is  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight  dollars.” 

Thus  it  appears  that,  according  to  the  best  evidence  the  case  admits  of,  the  farmers  of  the 
middle  States,  with  their  free  labor,  produce  more  than  twice  as,  great  a  value  to  the  hand  as  the 
farmers  and  planters  of  the  slave  States.  Slave  labor,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  is  best  adapted 
to  agriculture;  and  eve*i  that  noble  and  useful  branch  of  industry  is  languishing  under  its  in¬ 
fluence.  •  .  Y  '  ‘ 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  great  and  intelligent  men  of  Virginia  foresaw  this  premature  and  sad  de¬ 
cline',  anu  ascribed  it  to  ‘.ts'inaffeaiisc — if  ule  binet  fruits  of  experience  .nave  proved  that  «<a  very 
is  an  evil — air  we  not  called  upon,  by  all  the  promptings  of  duty  and  patriotism,  to  inhibit  its 
introduction  over  the  wide  plains  of  California,  so  recently  come  into  our  possession,  and  whose 
destiny  for  ages  and  generations  to  come,  seems  so  dependant  on  our  action. 

-  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  good  fortune  to  represent  on  this  floor  a  portion  of  the  northwest  terri¬ 
tory,  redeemed  from  the  curse  of  slavery,  by  the  wise  and  sagaciou  spro visions  of  the  Jeffersonian  ^ 
ordinance  of  1787.  In  the  year  1800,  that  whole  Northwest  territory  contained  but  60, 2^TT"*^ 
people,  and  had  no  Representative  on  this  floor.  In  forty  years,  her  population  luja  increased 
to  3,000,000 !  Five  States  in  this  Confederacy  have  been  formed  -out  of  her,  and  she  has 
forty-two  Representatives  on  this  floor.  Her  rich  plains  and  extensive  prainesare  cultivated-by 
the  resolute  hands,  of  cheerful  and  intelligent  freemen.  Cities,  and  towns,  and  villages  .have 
sprung  up  as  if  by  magic  over  her  wide  ex;  anse.  The  evidences  of  contentment  and  thrift  are 
risible  wherever  you  go.  By  the  blessings  of  an  unfettered  commerce,  her  immense  surplus 
products  seek  a  market  in  the  distant  marts  of  the  world,  and  she  is  receiving  in  return  the  rich 
rewards' of  an  enlightened  and  well  directed  industry.  v 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  history  of  theworld  furnishes  no  parallel  to  this.  And  who  can  doubt,  that 
this  unexampled  increase  in  po|IUIetion,  wealth,  and  every  element  of  prosperity  and  greatness,  . 
is  to  be  ascribed  in  a  great  degree  to  the-salutary  provisions  of  that  celebrated  ordinance?  So 
^  believing,  so  feeling,  I  should  prove  recreant  to  the  memories  of  the  past,  and  the  hopes  of  the 
future,  if  1  should  fail  to  insist  that  its  benefits  be  extended  to  these  new  Territories — destined,  I 
:  trust,  to  form  equally  free  and  prosperous  Slates  in  this  great  Confederacy. 


